New features are coming soon. Login with Facebook to get an early start and help us test them out!
CONVICTED: Was justice served?
more information on voting
When you vote, you are voting on whether or not the punishment fit the crime, NOT on the severity of the case itself. If you feel the sentence was very weak, you would vote 1 star. If you feel the sentence was very strong, you would vote 5 stars.
Please vote honestly and realistically. These ratings will be used a a tool for many future programs, including a "Peoples Choice" of best and worst sentencing, DA and judge "report cards", and more. Try to resist the temptation to vote 1 star on every case, even if you feel that 100 years in prison isnt enough.
Tuesday, Dec 31, 1974County: Oklahoma
Defendant/Suspect: Donald Lee Maloney
In 1975, the State of Oklahoma charged Donald Lee Maloney, defendant, with maliciously placing a dog in a pit with another dog and encouraging the dogs to fight, injure, maim, or kill one another. The trial court convicted defendant of cruelty to animals and fined defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1682 (1971) was constitutional as applied to the case but reversed and remanded the case because the court determined that the defendant had been improperly convicted under the anti-cruelty statute rather than the dogfighting statute.
Appellant Donald Lee Maloney, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Cleveland County, Case No. CRF-72-459, for the offense of Cruelty to Animals in violation of 21 O.S. 1971, § 1685, and from the judgment and sentence (Which was imposed on March 13, 1974), fixing his punishment at a fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, he appeals.
Since this case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial, we deem it unnecessary to set forth the evidence adduced at trial; suffice it to say that the allegations of the charging part of the Information, n1 and the evidence adduced on trial, were sufficient to fall within the provisions of 21 O.S. 1971, § 1682, but were not within the purview of 21 O.S. 1971, § 1685.
For all of the above and foregoing reasons, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial consistent with this opinion
« More cases in Oklahoma County, OK